>When I work for a temp agency, I don't let them keep almost all of the>money that I earn. Right now, under ideal conditions, an unskilled>worker will earn 60 gold in a month and receive only 5. Under the>worst conditions I've seen, an unskilled worker can earn 24 gold in a>month and receive only 5. I can pimp for myself, thank you.

To a certain degree, I view the units controlled by a faction leader more
as henchmen, not employees. They are in it as much because they like you
as because you are paying them -- so long as you treat them well. This
view, however, is certainly up to debate.

>However, it's important to note that this is only an argument about>the realism of the plan. I don't give doodly squat for realism; the>reason that I propose things is for play-balance.

I don't know if this is always the best way to look at things. In the
realm of wargames, chess is wonderfully balanced and abstracted BUT it
no longer bears much resemblance to the military battles it is roughly
designed to simulate. At this point, good chess moves are based not on
military strategy but on the mathamatical permutations of the abstracted
rules themselves.

> What I would like to know is what is so wonderful about he current> system? I know it lets you "do what you want if you have the money"> but is the freedom to pull units out of the air at whim if you are> rich enough really a good thing?

If Olympia is meant to be a simulation, it should
keep simulation value and realism in mind.

(Note, I have suggested things for balance as well but I try to keep
their effects on the realism in mind...)

>And work is fairly>unique in its effect on the game because it's a way for masses of>unskilled men to generate massive money -- something that can't be>done otherwise (when the markets become limited).

This is a very clear way of putting it. I now understand your objection
fully. I would agree that work should not allow units to generate massive
money but I also feel that it should generate enough money to allow units
to train and move -- or should it?

>Determinism is a nice thing. If I don't know if I am going to succeed>in forming a new unit, I have to plan a turn in advance. The more>things like that you have in Olympia, the slower the game goes. You>wouldn't want everything to become deterministic, but some balance is>nice.

I thought the idea was that we WANTED the game to move more slowly as
far as new units go. I realize that it can be frustrating to take two
turns to get up to speed with a new unit (maybe more if things don't
go well) but isn't this sort of "slow down" the sort of thing people
are asking for? Note, I also proposed simply this:

If FORM gets replaced with a hire system, give all new plays 5 free "forms".
By "free", I mean 0 cost. They work just as before. They can use them at
any point in the game but once the 5 points are up, they cannot use FORM
any more. Another idea I was toying with was to award additional FORM points
for various things in the game such as finding artifacts, gaining level 10
in a skill (you become a master and a new unit might seek you out), etc.
that is, if Rich wants to introduce a few set goals into the game.

There hasn't been a whole lot of comment on the hire system I
proposed. Is that because (A) other things are more important to
people, (B) the idea is stupid, (C) the idea is so stunningly
brilliant it needs no praise, or (D) something completely different.
I'm just wondering what the people I haven't heard from are thinking.
If the consensus is that it is a stupid idea, I will drop the subject.